INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION IN A DYAD AS A FUNCTION
OF THE PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS OF ITS MEMBERS
by
RICHARD MARSHALL MCVJHIRTER, JR., B.A. , M.A.
A DISSERTATION
IN
PSYCHOLOGY
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
Accepted
December, 1969
SOI
/c/y^ O ACKNOWTLEDGEMENTS
I am indebted to Dr. Clay George, chairman of
the committee, for his assistance by v/ay of suggestions
and encouragement, and to the other committee members.
Dr. Sam Campbell, Dr. Nathan Denny, Dr. Charles Halcomb,
Dr. James Archer, and Dr. Everett Gillis, for their
time and interest.
Also, I would like to express my appreciation
to my wife and our families for their moral and
material support throughout graduate school.
11
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
I. INTRODUCTION 1
The Interpersonal Attraction Variable 1
The Typical Paradigm of Attraction
Experiments 2
Correlates of Attraction 4
Propinquity and Responsivity 5
The Dynamics of the Interaction 5
Overt Stimulus Characteristics 7
Aims of the Current Study 10
II. METHOD 14
Subjects 14
Design 14 Scaling of Attractiveness 15
Procedure 17
III. RESULTS 19
IV. DISCUSSION 30
The Law of Attraction 30
The Role of Sex 32
The Role of Subject Attractiveness 32
The Role of Stranger Attractiveness 33
The Second-Order Interaction 36
Suggestions for Future Research 37 • • •
111
IV
V. SUI -IARY 40
LIST OF REFERENCES 41
APPENDIX 44
A. Interpersonal Judgement Scale 45
B* Correlation Coefficients for Each Pair
of Judges Rating S Attractiveness 46
C. Attitude Questionnaire 47
D. Raw Attraction Scores for All Subjects 49
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Mean and Standard Deviation of Attraction Scores for Each Experimental Treatment 20
2. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Attraction Scores 21
3. Difference in Mean Attraction Tov/ard Lov/ and High Agreeing Strangers for Combinations of Subject and Stranger Attractiveness 25
w
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1* Attraction as a joint function of proportion of similar attitudes and physical attractiveness (after Byrne et_ aJL., 196S) 9
2* Attraction tov/ard lov/ attractive strangers as a joint function of agreement and subject attractiveness 22
3. Attraction toward average attractive strangers as a joint function of agreement and subject attractiveness 23
4. Attraction toward high attractive strangers as a joint function of agreement and subject attractiveness 24
5* Attraction of male and female Ss toward female strangers of varying attractiveness 27
6. Attraction as a negatively accelerated function of stranger attractiveness 25
7* Non-interactive effects of subject and stranger attractiveness on attraction 29
5* Attraction as a joint function of agreement and stranger attractiveness 35
VI
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Interpersonal Attraction Variable
Among the topics of recent concern to social and
personality psychologists, fev/ have been of more
heuristic importance than that of "interpersonal
attraction," its theory and dynamics. Despite the fact
that, in the realm of human behavior, "prediction and
control" are not universally accepted as positive values,
a working understanding of interpersonal relationships
is gradually emerging—an understanding that could
someday inform an attack on hate, prejudice, and
violence. However that may be, a really complete
formulation of the principles of attraction, not to
mention effective practical application of those
principles, awaits the slow accumulation of data obtained
by such experiments as the one reported here.
Whether interpersonal attraction is conceptualized
as a sort of mechanistic affinity between individuals or,
more cognitively, as an introspectively perceived
"liking" for another, is not particularly relevant. V/hat
is important is to realize that attraction is a construct
v/hich has meaning only v/ith regard to the operations by
1
v/hich it is defined, and that it has been defined in a
variety of v/ays. Ordinarily, the definitions of
attraction require introspection and an ability, on the
part of the subject, to rank order, rate, or otherv/ise
quantify his liking of others. Recently, attempts have
been made to measure attraction by behavioral variables
v/hich avoid the need for introspection. Clone (1969)
has found that such behavioral indices as distance and
angle of preferred interaction, seating behavior, etc.
correlate to some degree with the more classical
introspective indices. Other measures, such as pupil
dilation (Hess & Polt, 1966), also seem to hold promise
for future use as measures of attraction. But such
definitions of attraction, with their appeal to
objectivism, have not yet been sufficiently well
validated to substitute for the more popular paper and
pencil scales, with assurance that the same variable is
being discussed in all instances. Thus in the current
study the attraction measure will be of the verbal
report type.
The Typical Paradigm of Attraction Experiments
Though the attraction in a dyad is a two-way
proposition, the attraction of X for Y and of Y for X
being conceptually independent quantities, the typical
experiment utilizes only the attraction of one person
3
(the subject (S) ) for a stimulus person (also called
"target" or "stranger"). Differences betv/een the Ss
and/or the stimulus persons usually serve as the
independent variables. Thus the stranger is usually
either a confederate pre-programmed to behave in a
certain v/ay, or a mythical stranger who is known to S
only by his alleged responses on a questionnaire. The
latter approach has the advantages of economy and
experimental control while sacrificing the realism of
the confederate approach, with its greater generality.
Interestingly enough, it has been found that, within the
limits of a typical experimental situation, the tv/o types
of strangers do not produce differential results
(McVJhirter & Jecker, 1966). In that study, half of the
4^ subjects were exposed to a confederate stranger who,
in a face-to-face interaction, agreed on either two,
four, or six items of a seven item attitude scale. The
other half saw only the completed questionnaire of a
non-existent stranger: here, also, agreement v/as on
either tv/o, four, or six items for each subject. V/hile
agreement was found to significantly influence attraction,
the effect of stimulus mode was non-significant. The
current study will utilize the mythical-type stranger,
as a matter of convenience and control*
Correlates of Attraction
Propinquity and Responsivity
The experimentally investigated correlates of
attraction might be roughly classified into four main
categories: (1) the opportunity for physical
interaction (propinquity), (2) personality charateristics
which reflect responsiveness tov/ard others in general,
(3) the dynamics of the interaction betv/een the subject
and stimulus person, and (4) the overt characteristics
of the stimulus person coupled with the expectancies of
the subject concerning those characteristics*
An example of research in the first of these areas,
propinquity, is a study by Byrne (1961) in which
classroom seating arrangement significantly influenced
the proportion of acquaintances, when the seating
arrangement was maintained for a sufficiently long time
period. In general, such studies have demonstrated that
the probability of attraction, as well as the magnitude
of attraction, is positively related to physical
closeness and temporal duration.
Concerning the second category, a number of
personality variables have been found to reflect the
individual's responsiveness tov/ard others. Perhaps the
most extensively investigated of these have been need for
affiliation (e.g., Byrne, 1962) and authoritarianism
(e.g., Jones, 1954). The gist of such studies is that,
all else being equal, people differ in their liking for
others in general, and in their liking for particular
classes of people. The third and fourth categories
above are of particular concern to this paper and will
be discussed in some detail below.
The Dynamics of the Interaction
Perhaps the most consistent and important finding
concerning the dynamics of the interaction, and the
subsequent effect on attraction, is that the more two
people agree on a set of opinions, the greater will be
the attraction betv/een them. Not only has the effect
been found v/ith college students (e.g., Newcomb, 1961;
Byrne, 1966; McWhirter & Jecker, 1966), but with children
(Byrne &.Griffitt, 1966), clerical workers (Krauss, 1966),
Job Corpsmen and hospital patients (Byrne, Griffitt,
Hudgins, & Reeves; in press), spouses (Richardson, 1939),
friends (Richardson, 1940), etc. The phenomenon itself
is not really open to contradiction, so consistently and
predictably is it found—it has even been called the
"Law of Attraction" (Byrne & Nelson, 1965)--but the
theoretical interpretation is currently the subject of a
fairly lively debate. As might have been predicted, the
arguments fall broadly into tv/o schools of thought,
cognitive and reinforcement interpretations* In the
words of Byrne, London, and Reeves (1965, p. 259):
Cognitive consistency theorists stress the importance of the balance or symmetry of the positive and negative attitudes and orientations of any tv/o individuals v/ith respect to each other and to the objects about which they communicate (e*g*, Heider, 1955; Newcomb, 1959, 1961). In a quite different theoretical context, reinforcement theorists stress the reward-punishment consequents of each element of the interaction . . .
Byrne (1966) and Pepitone (1964) are proponents of
reinforcement interpretations of attraction. According «
to them, attraction is essentially the learned expectation
of forthcoming reward from another person* As interesting
as this controversy is, it is not the central focus of
this study. Nor is any experiment or group of experiments
likely to resolve the controversy in the near future.
What is of importance to this study is the empirical fact
that the attraction of §_ for a stranger is a positive
linear function of the proportion of similar attitudes
attributed to the stranger (Byrne & Nelson, 1965).
It is also of interest that similarity along
dimensions other than attitudes, such as economic
similarity-dissimilarity (Byrne, Clore, & VJorchel, 1966)
and even similarity in use of certain ego-defense
techniques (Byrne, Griffitt, & Stefaniak, 1967) has been
generally found to influence attraction in the same v/ay
as does similarity of attitudes. Indeed, it has been
proposed that similarity along any social dimension is a
sufficient condition for attraction (Byrne, Clore, &
Worchel, 1966). This proposition will receive some
attention in the current study.
Overt Stimulus Characteristics
The effect upon attraction of the overt
characteristics of the stimulus person has been
investigated rather sparingly, and much remains to be
done in this area; it is here that we find phenomena
ranging in significance from "love at first sight" to
racial prejudice. Stimulus characteristics v/hich have
been found to affect attraction include clothing (e.g.,
Hoult, 1954), voice quality (e.g., Lerner, 1965), race
(e.g., Wong, 1961), and physical attractiveness (e.g.,
Byrne, London, & Reeves, 1965). This last experiment
serves as a point of departure for the present study,
and will now be discussed in detail.
Byrne et al. (1965) added to the traditional
paradigm of attraction studies (S s evaluate strangers
known only by a questionnaire filled out to agree in
various degrees v/ith Ss' questionnaire responses) by
appending face pictures v/hich had been ranked, by
independent judges, either very high or very low in a
distribution arranged according to physical attractiveness.
Strangers and Ss of both sexes were used. Thus the
effect on attraction of the variables of attitude
similarity, attractiveness of^stranger, sex of S, and
5
sex of stranger, was investigated. As predicted, the
agreement and attractiveness main effects were both
significant, and were additive--no agreement x
attractiveness interaction v/as found. But, contrary
to expectations, there v/ere no significant interactions
between any combination of sex and attractiveness
variables. The correlation between attitude similarity
and the dependent variable was .50 (N=205, £ less than
.001); that between stranger attractiveness and
attraction was .15 (N=205, p less than .05). Since,
except for the pictures, the experimental design was
essentially the same as those employed in the Byrne and
Nelson (1965) review, the function described in the
latter was used as a sort of non-picture control group,
to assess the effect of the pictures. It was discovered
that the attraction-agreement curve for the attractive
stranger condition v/as as would be predicted by Byrne
and Nelson, but the curve for the non-attractive
stranger group was lov/er, as shown in Figure 1. Two
possible explanations were suggested for this latter
finding. First, that the original sample of sorted
pictures v/as attenuated in range, and the high-ranked
strangers were really only average in the general
population. Indeed, subjective evaluation of the
pictures by the authors led to the opinion that this
was a definite possibility. A second explanation v/as
13.0
12*0
11*0 —
&5 O M EH O
TRA
EH <
10.0
9*0
5*0
7*0
6*0
— Byrne-Nelson Function
Attractive Stranger
J L
Unattractive Stranger
J L J L 1
.00 *20 *40 *60 *50 1.00
PROPORTION OF SIMILAR ATTITUDES
Figure 1* Attraction as a joint function of
proportion of similar attitudes and physical attractiveness
(after Byrne et al*, 1965)
^^
10
that S_s, not shown a picture, assume that the stranger
is better than average looking, and rate him accordingly*
Therefore an attractive picture would not enhance
attraction, but a non-attractive picture would lov/er the
rating. But whatever the case may be, this lack of
greater attraction for attractive strangers than for
controls, along v/ith the failure to find any sex
influences, were the only non-routine findings of the
Byrne et al. (1965) experiment.
Aims of the Current Study
The current study attempts to further clarify the
nature of the agreement-attraction relationship as
modified by overt stimulus characteristics; while
similar to the Byrne et al. (1965) experiment, it
differs in several major respects. First, it occurred to
the author that Byrne's failure to find any sex
differences might be due to the rather neutral, platonic
nature of the stimulus pictures. It was felt that a
picture of the whole person, in a bathing suit, would
provide information of differential interest to the sexes,
and this should increase the likelihood of a sex x
attractiveness-of-stranger interactiono In the current
study, since it becomes unnecessary for testing this
hypothesis, sex-of-stranger is dropped as a variable, and
all strangers used are female.
11
To further investigate the other unusual finding,
that Byrne's control and attractive stranger groups
responded the same, several changes v/ere made. In
interpreting this finding, Byrne failed to mention
another possibility, that attraction is a negatively
accelerated function of stranger attractiveness, and
that non-seen strangers are, reasonably, assumed to be
average* This interpretation, if supported, would
suggest that very unattractive strangers are disliked
somewhat, but beyond a certain point attractiveness is
not crucial, a reasonable possibility. To enable a check
of this explanation, an "average attractive" stimulus
person v/as added to the low and high levels of stranger
attractiveness. To investigate the likelihood of Byrne's
other suggested interpretation, that his range of
pictures was attenuated, ratings of the strangers were
obtained, as opposed to rank ordering, so an idea could
be gotten as to the range of attractiveness and the
strangers' positions in the general population.
Finally another independent variable was added,
subject attractiveness. According to the hypothesis
(Byrne, Clore, & V/orchel, 1966) that similarity along
any social dimension produces attraction, unattractive
Ss should prefer unattractive strangers and vice versa:
an attractiveness-of-stranger x attractiveness-of-S^
interaction. If no such interaction is found, but the
12
attractiveness-of-stranger main effect is significant,
the effect of physical attractiveness on attraction
would seem to be a universal effect. In addition, the
subject attractiveness variable allov/s us to check for
another possibility. It will be recalled that the
reinforcement interpretation of attraction hypothesizes
that liking, or being attracted to, another is
essentially learning to anticipate reward in his presence.
A case could be made that, in this society, attractive
people receive more reinforcement from others iji general
than non-attractive people do. An attractiveness-of-
subject main effect, with attractive Ss showing more
liking than non-attractive S s, would tend to confirm
both hypotheses.
In summary, the particular issues to be clarified
by the study are as follov/s:
1. In a case where more informative stimulus
pictures are used, will agreement continue to account for
as much variance in attraction scores as it did in the
Byrne et al. (1965) study?
2. V/ill the sexually relevant nature of the
stimuli produce either a sex-of-subject main effect (since
all strangers are female) or a sex-of-subject x
attractiveness-of-stranger interaction, signifying that
the sexual attractiveness of females is of differential
importance (in influencing attraction) to the sexes?
13
3* Is the stranger attractiveness-attraction
relationship linear, as Byrne et al. (1965) seem to
have assumed, or is it negatively accelerated? This
information should aid us in interpreting some of that
study's findings.
4. V/ill the attractiveness-of-subject x
attractiveness-of-stranger interaction be significant,
verifying the notion that similarity along any social
dimension increases attraction?
5* Will subject attractiveness significantly
influence attraction scores, supporting the notions
that (l) liking, or being attracted to, another is
expecting rev/ard in his presence, and (2) attractive
persons receive more reward from others than non-
attractive persons do?
CHAPTER II
METHOD
Subjects
The Ss were 45 male and 45 female undergraduate
students taking psychology courses during the 1969
summer sessions at Texas Tech University. Each S
evaluated only one stranger.
Design
A 3x2x2x2 completely randomized factorial design
was employed; the independent variables were
attractiveness of stranger (three levels), attractiveness
of S , sex of S , and the proportion of similar attitudes
between S and his stranger. The 24 cells each contained
four experimental Ss. The dependent variable,
attraction of S for stranger, was obtained by summing
the last two items on the Interpersonal Judgement Scale
(Byrne, 196l) , v/hich is included as Appendix A, The tv/o
items summed yield an attraction score which can range
from two, the least attraction possible, to fourteen, the
greatest possible. The split-half reliability of the tv/o
items has been reported (Byrne & Nelson, 1965) to be .55.
However, it was felt that the stimulus pictures used in
14
15
the current study might differentia^ly affect responses
to the two items, and so a check was made of the
reliability for the 96 S s in this experiment, and was
found to be .56.
Scaling of Attractiveness
The experimenter (E) subjectively selected black
and v/hite pictures of four girls in bathing suits or
shorts and blouses, from past school annuals, v/ith the
objective of obtaining an extreme range of
attractiveness. Then 15 male and 15 female raters, or
judges, drav/n from the same population as the
experimental S s, were asked to rate each picture for
attractiveness, on a one (extremely unattractive) to
nine (extremely attractive) scale. The order of
presentation was randomized to control for adaptation
level-type effects (Helson, I964) whereby perceptual
responses are altered by preceeding stimuli. While
increasing the variance in rating scores for each
stimulus picture, this randomization should provide a
truer estimate of their mean ratings. The three most
equally spaced pictures v/ere selectedo Those selected
had mean ratings of 2.90, 5.56, and 5.23; the standard
deviations of the ratings were 1.22, 1.45, and .55
respectively. Henceforth, these pictures v/ill be called
the low, average, and high attractive strangers. Matched
16
group t_-tests betv/een the low and average, and average
and high attractive strangers' ratings yielded ^'s of
5.75 and 5.61 ( less chan .001 in both cases). There
were only two reversals by raters; on two occassions, a
judge rated the low attractive stranger one point
higher than the average attractive one.
Since attractiveness is a rather global construct,
the stimulus persons were permitted to differ in a
variety of ways, to allow for maximum inclusion of the
relevant factors of attractiveness. That is, no attempt
was made to control for hair shade, body position, type
of outfit, etc., since those are all probably dimensions
of attractiveness. Thus it must be remembered that the
results of the experiment apply to the variable of
attractiveness a^ defined (i.e., judges' ratings of
factorially complex pictures), and may be misleading if
interpretated in the context of more homogeneous, or
otherwise divergent, concepts of attractivenesso
Likev/ise, the attractiveness of the Ss was
obtained by judges' ratings. Four male raters were
employed, and the mean correlation betv/een attractiveness
scores for all six possible pairs of judges was .62
(Appendix B)* The attractiveness score of each S was
the mean of the four judges' ratings, and the two levels
of subject attractiveness were obtained by dividing at
the median of the resulting distributiono
17
Procedure
Early in the semester each S v/as asked to complete
an attitude questionnaire (Appendix C) which asks for
S's opinions on 12 controversial issues (e.g., drinking,
smoking, integration, the university grading system).
The responses are made by circling the number of the
most accurate of six responses from "very strongly
disagree" to "very strongly agree," following a
statement about the issue. On the questionnaire, each
S was also asked his favorite hobby, and v/hether he
could spare a picture of himself v/hile engaging in his
hobby. This was to allay possible suspicions later, on
the part of S, concerning the picture of his stranger
in a bathing suit (as the stranger had answered that her
hobby was swimming and that, yes, she did have a picture
she could spare).
Subjects were told that the purpose of the
experiment was to see how accurately one person could
judge another on the basis of limited information--his
opinions on some issues, and his appearance. They were
told that others were completing the questionnaire, and
that later they would be given the completed
questionnaire of another person and v/ould be asked to
evaluate him; another person would do the same using
the S_*s questionnaire.
15
Later in the semester, each S was given the
questionnaire of a stranger, supposedly that of another
student. Actually, the questionnaire had been filled
out by E to agree or disagree on a random 10 of 12
issues giving the two levels of the attitude similarity
variable; disagreeing responses alv/ays differed from the
S 's by three response categories. Appended to each
questionnaire was one of the three stimulus pictures.
After reading the stranger's opinions and studying the
picture, S_ filled out the Interpersonal Judgement Scale
to evaluate the stranger. The attraction scores thus
obtained were subjected to analysis of variance, trend
analysis (Edv/ards, 1963, pp. 224-253) , and a
correlational analysis (Kirk, 1965, p. 195) to discover
the relative contribution to attraction of the several
independent variables.
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
The raw attraction scores for all subjects are
presented in Appendix D. Table 1 presents the mean and
standard deviation of the four scores for each
experimental treatment. The analysis of variance,
summarized in Table 2, shows that all the independent
variables except sex-of-subject contributed significant
variance to the attraction scores (£ less than .002 for
all). In addition, the second-order interaction of the
three variables (attractiveness-of-subject,
attractiveness-of-stranger, proportion of similar
attitudes) was significant (£ less than .01). The
percentages of the variance in attraction attributable
to the four significant effects are: agreement, 27*0
per cent; attractiveness-of-stranger, 6.5 per cent;
attractiveness-of-subject, 6.3 per cent; and the
interaction between the three, 4.4 per cent.
The second-order interaction is plotted in Figures
2, 3, and 4. Each figure shows the attractiveness-of-
subject x agreement relationship for one of the levels
of stranger attractiveness. The key to this interaction
seems to be the decreasing influence of agreement as
stranger attractiveness increases, for attractive S s,
19
20
TABLE 1
Mean (Top Number) and Standard Deviation
of Attraction Scores for Each
Experimental Treatment
(
Low Attractive Stranger
Average Attractive Stranger
High Attractive Stranger
Lo* ^
Lo*
Hi*
Lo-^
Hi'"
MALE S
Low Agree
5.75
.50
6.00
1.63
5*25
2*50
10*50
.55
5.50
2*35
12.50
1.29
High Agree
9.25
*96
10.00
3.65
10.00
2.31
11*75
2*06
13.00
1.41
12*00
i./a
FEMALE S
Low Agree
7.25
3.77
7.00
2*16
6.00
3.16
5.50
3.79
7.50
2.64
10.25
1.50
High Agree
9.50
1.00
12.25
2.36
11.25
2.75
11*50
1*73
11*25
2*06
11.50
.55
^Attractiveness of Subject
21
TABLE 2
Summary of Analysis of Variance
of Attraction Scores
A Sex
Source
of Subject
B Attractiveness
C Att: Ltude Simila
D Stranger Attrac
AB
AC
BC
ABC
AD
BD
ABD
CD
ACD
BCD
ABCD
Within
Total
Cells
of S
Lrity
:tiveness
df
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
72
95
MS
.09
61*76
243*54
35.07
1*26
1*76
15.54
6.51
10.41
3.52
2.57
1.97
7.01
24.59
6.63
356.75
571.99
F
.02
12.46
49.21
7.05
.25
.35
3.20
1.31
2.10
.77
.52
.40
1.42
4.96
1.34
9.15
P
.556
.001
1.3x10*"
.002 ^
.622
.560
.074 •
.254
.125
.496
.513
.523
.245
.009 '
.265
22
o M EH O
EH
13.0 i_
12.0
11.0
10^0
9.0
5.0
7.0
6.0
Byrne-Nelson Function
Unattractive Ss
J I I I I I I I I I L
.00 .20 .40 .60 .50 1.00
PROPORTION OF SIMILAR ATTITUDES
Figure 2. Attraction toward lovr attractive
strangers as a joint function of agreement and subject
attractiveness
23
J2; o M EH O <
13.0
12.0 -
11.0 -
10.0
9.0
5.0
7*0
60O
Byrne-Nelson Function
Attrac
Ss
J L I I I L J L
*00 *20 *40 *60 *50 1.00
PROPORTION OF SIMILAR ATTITUDES
Figure 3. Attraction toward average attractive
strangers as a joint function of agreement and subject
attractiveness
o M EH O
EH
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
r-
5.0
7.0 ».
6oO -
Byrne-Nelson Function
At t ract ive S6
Unattractive Ss
J L J 1—_J L
*00 .20 *40 *60
24
•50 1.00
PROPORTION OF SBIILAR ATTITUDES
Figure 4. Attraction toward h^gh attractive
strangers as a joint function of
attractiveness agreement and subject
25
and its increasing influence as stranger attractiveness
increases for unattractive Ss. The difference in mean
attraction toward low and high agreeing strangers,
across levels of stranger and subject attractiveness,
are shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3
Difference in Mean Attraction Toward Lov/
and High Agreeing Strangers for
Combinations of Subject and
Stranger Attractiveness
Stranger Attractiveness
Subject Attractiveness
Low 2.9
•^^^f-'yff'ffff*^^!:'™ rr"*^^
High 4.6
3.5
2.1
5.6
0.4
Despite the fact that all strangers were rather
scantily clad females, males showed no greater
attraction for them than did female Ss. Neither was
the sex-of-subject x attractiveness-of-stranger
interaction significant at an acceptable level. There
did seem to be enough of a possibility of such an effect
26
(p, less than .13), hov/ever, to justify plotting the
relationship in Figure 5*
A trend analysis for the mean attraction scores
across levels of stranger attractiveness revealed a
predominantly linear function (linear mean square=65.06,
d.f.=l, p less than .01; quadratic mean square=2.05,
d.f.=l, not significant). Hov/ever, the negatively
accelerated nature of the function is revealed not only
in the graph (Figure 6), but by a mean comparison
(Scheffe, 1953). The difference (one-tailed) between
the low and average attractive stranger means was
significant (F=5.53, p. less than .05), but that between
average and high attractive strangers was not (F=1.67,
not significant).
Finally, since it bears on the viability of the
notion that social similarity per se increases
attraction, it may be pointed out that the
attractiveness-of-stranger x attractiveness-of-subject
interaction v/as not significant. Figure 7 shows the
non-significant interaction, revealing that both low
and high attractive Ss shov/ a preference for high
attractive strangers.
27
13.0
12.0
11.0
a 10.0 o M EH
< 9.0 EH EH
• 5.0
7.0
6oO
Female S
J L J L J I I I
1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0
STRANGER ATTRACTIVENESS
Figure 5. Attraction of male and female Ss
toward female strangers of varying attractiveness
9.0
25
o M O < ft! EH
<
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
5.0
7.0
6.0
1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0
STRANGER ATTRACTIVENESS
Figure 6. Attraction as a negatively accelerated
function of stranger attractiveness
29
:5 o M EH O <
EH
13.0
12.0
11*0
10.0
9.0
5.0
7*0
6*0
High Attractive Ss
Low Attractive Ss
J I I L » I i
1*0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0
STRANGER ATTRACTIVENESS
Figure 7* The non-interactive effects of subject
and stranger attractiveness on attraction
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
The Law of Attraction
Byrne and Nelson's (1965) Law of Attraction, an
equation (Y=5.44 X+6.62) specifying attraction as
measured on the Interpersonal Judgement Scale (Y) as a
function of proportion of similar attitudes (X), has
again proven to be a very general principle. It has
been found, in this experiment, to apply to a case in
which S has a relatively large amount of information
about the stranger--in some respects, more information
than obtained by using confederate strangers, fully
dressed. The discrepancy between this study's results
and those predicted by the Byrne-Nelson function is
slight. Specifically, the function would predict the
mean attraction for the low and high agreement strangers
to be 7.53 and 11.15, respectively; the actual means
obtained, across all other variables, were 7*92 and
11.10. And if the attraction averaged slightly higher
for all strangers than v/ould be predicted (9.51 versus
9.34), so did the average attractiveness rating of the
three strangers employed (5.5 versus 5.0). With this
study, the generality of the principle has been extended.
30
31
In the behavioral sciences in general, and in
social psychology in particular, accurate and
quantitative prediction is seldom obtained. The Law of
Attraction, as limited in scope as it is, is significant
because it demonstrates that even human relationships
are, to some degree, at least, predictable and orderly.
Still, the principle is just a promising beginning
tov/ard a v/orking understanding of human relationships.
Much needs to be done in relating verbal report
measures of liking, such as the attraction items of the
Interpersonal Judgement Scale, to the behavioral
correlates which are of more importance to the social
order. And in a larger sense, much needs to be done in
discovering hov/ agreement, and other antecedents of
attraction, retain their influence when the complexity
of the real v/orld is substituted for the simplicity of
the laboratory. The Law of Attraction, even in an
experimental setting, is a very general principle, and
predicts the average dyadic attraction of a number of
subjects quite v/ell. This accuracy may be misleading
if one forgets that these are averages of a number of
dyads, the attraction in each of v/hich has been altered
by other details of the interaction, such as the
members' attractiveness positions. But even considered
in the light of these limitations, the "lav/" probably
comes as close to deserving that title as any phenomenon
32
yet discovered by social psychologists. Even the laws
of physiology and learning, older, more established
areas of psychology, suffer from the same inability to
accurately predict the individual case.
The Role of Sex
The seemingly remarkable, continuing failure to
find sex differences in attraction toward strangers
deserves comment. Apparently, the failure by Byrne
et al. (1965) was not .due to the non-sexual nature of
the pictures as hypothesized; at least, this cannot be
used as an explanation for the failure in this
experiment. Probably we have taken a wrong tack. V/e
have expected sexual attraction to manifest itself in an
instrument, the Interpersonal Judgement Scale, not
designed or intended to measure sexual attraction, but
platonic liking. It would be amazing if such expected
sex differences could not be found with items more
appropriately designed to measure sexual attraction
(e.g., "I think that I would enjoy going to a movie with
this person . . . " ) , but this is a problem for
future research.
There does seem to be a possibility that varying
the attractiveness of female strangers influences
attraction from males more than from females (Figure 5),
though the effect is not significant (£ less than .13).
33
It is possible that an even greater range of stranger
attractiveness, and even more sexually relevant pictures,
would allow one to find this effect reliably. But this
relationship, too, could probably easiest be found by
creating a more valid measure of sexual attraction.
The Role of Subject Attractiveness
The attractiveness-of-subject main effect v/as,
perhaps, even more significant than was hoped for,
considering the moderate (r=.62) inter-judge reliability
of the subjects' attractiveness ratings, and the
non-extreme condition levels created by dividing a
distribution at the median. The hypotheses, that (l)
liking is learned anticipation of rev/ard, and (2)
attractive persons receive more reward than non-attractive
persons, are supported.
The Role of Stranger Attractiveness
Byrne et al. (1965) found agreement to account for
25 per cent of the variance in attraction scores, and
attractiveness of stranger to account for 2.25 per cent.
The current study found those variables to account for
27 per cent and 6.5 per cent, respectively. Apparently,
adding information to the stimulus (i.e., using pictures
of the whole person instead of just the face) does not
reduce the influence of agreement,.but the added
34
information independently influences attraction scores.
That is, increased variance in attraction scores
introduced by adding information to the stimulus
pictures, and (probably) by increasing the range of
attractiveness of the pictures, is not gained at the
expense of agreement-related variance©
Unlike that of agreement, the effect of stranger
attractiveness on attraction does not appear to be
strictly linear (Figure 6). It will be recalled that
mean attraction tov/ard the lov/ and average strangers
differed significantly, but the average and high means
did not. This probably accounts, in part, for the
failure of Byrne et al. (1965) to find a difference
between attraction, as predicted by the Byrne-Nelson
function, and attraction toward the attractive stranger
(Figure l). In addition, the suggestion that the range
of pictures used in that study was attenuated also
received partial support. This becomes clear v/hen one
sees the elation effect manifested, in Figure 5, with
the stimulus pictures used in this study. Clearly, the
attractiveness-of-stranger variable both raised and
lowered the agreement-attraction function relative to
the Byrne-Nelson curve. Of course, this difference in
results may be due to the qualitative difference of the
pictures utilized in the two studies, and not simply to
a greater range of stranger attractiveness. But it
35
o H EH O < EH
13.0
12.0
11*0
10.0
9.0
5.0
7.0
6.0
— Byrne-Nelson Function
«
Hi
Avg. *
Lo •
I L
Stranger Attractiveness
J \ I I I I I I
.00 .20 .40 .60 .50 1.00
PROPORTION OF SBIILAR ATTITUDES
Figure 5. Attraction as a joint function of
agreement and stranger attractiveness
36
remains a pretty safe guess that the attractive strangers
in the Byrne et alo study v/ere not that extreme in the
general population.
The notion, forwarded by Byrne, Clore and Worchel
(1966), that similarity along any social dimension
enhances attraction, did not receive support from this
study. There was no tendency for like to prefer like,
as far as physical attractiveness is concerned. Rather,
for both levels of subject attractiveness, attractive
strangers were preferred, as is clearly shown in Figure 7.
The Second-Order Interaction
Perhaps the most important finding of the study is
the attractiveness-of-subject x attractiveness-of-stranger
X agreement interaction, since the three variables
involved were the only ones significant individually.
As indicated in Figures 2, 3, and 4 and in Table 3, the
increase in attraction due to agreement, for attractive
S s, decreases as the stranger's attractiveness increases.
Conversely, for unattractive S s, the influence of
agreement increases as the stranger's attractiveness
increases. Consequently, two attractive people are apt
to like each other considerably despite dissimilar
attitudes. If one is unattractive, each one's liking for
the other is highly dependent upon attitude similarity.
But if both are unattractive, even though agreement is of
ika&.;,
37
some importance, neither is likely to be extremely
attracted to the other. Finally, if one is average,
the other's attraction toward him (as determined by
agreement) v/ill be roughly in accord with the slope of
the Byrne-Nelson function, though the constant of the
equation will vary according to his own attractiveness.
Suggestions for Future Research
Like most experiments, this one has answered some
questions and raised others. Among the questions raised
is one resulting from E's having used all female
strangers. Strictly speaking, the findings of the
experiment apply only to dyads in which one of the
members is female. Perhaps the results v/ould have been
different if male strangers had been used. For example,
it is conceivable that females are more influenced by
male attractiveness than vice versa. Another question
is whether sex differences would have been manifested
in a scale designed to measure heterosexual attraction.
Finally, the conclusions discussed concerning the
failure of Byrne et al. (1965) to find a difference
toward attractive strangers and controls are
problematical. This is because of the qualitative
difference in the pictures used in the two studies.
To rigorously demonstrate that Byrne's failure was due
to a limited range of stranger attractiveness, one
35
would have to find greater attraction toward strangers
represented by face pictures. It has been demonstrated
that the effect is found when the pictures are of the
whole person and vary greatly in attractiveness.
The accumulation of data in the area of attraction
seems to have reached a point such that consolidation of
isolated findings might prove fruitful. It has already
been pointed out, for example, that certain personality
variables, such as need for affiliation, affect
attraction. In this study, and others, it has been
found that some physical characteristics influence
attraction. Therefore, it might clarify matters to
correlate, say, need for affiliation and physical
attractiveness; perhaps the tv/o are not as unrelated as
they appear to be at first glance* Indeed, a factor
analytic study of all the known correlates of attraction
might v/ell reduce the burgeoning list of attraction
antecedents into a small number of basic factors* This
possibility seems to the author to merit consideration*
Finally, though many experimentalists have no
particular interest in the application of their findings,
a solid foundation for application seems to have been
laid for those who do have such an interest. A
considerable body of knov/ledge already exists concerning
the antecedents of expressed attraction. To begin to
apply this knov/ledge, it would seem necessary only to
39
discover how expressed attraction translates into
interpersonal behavior* If this were done, clinical
psychologists, counselors, social workers, and others
who utilize the principles of human relations could
take advantage of the experimentalists* interest in
interpersonal attraction*
CHAPTER V
SUl lT RY
The Law of Attraction states that attraction
between members of a dyad is a positive, linear function
of the proportion of similar attitudes held in common.
The purpose of the current study was to investigate hov/
this agreement-attraction function is affected by the
variables of sex, subject attractiveness, and stimulus
person ("stranger") attractiveness. Despite the fact
that the female strangers' pictures v/ere chosen to be
sexually relevant, sex-of-subject v/as not significant
as a main effect or in interaction. The other main
effects—agreement, subject attractiveness, stranger
attractiveness--were all highly significant individually,
and (combined) as a second-order interaction. The
subject attractiveness main effect was seen as supporting
the reinforcement approach to attraction. The
interaction was interpreted to mean that, for attractive
subjects, agreement becomes less important in affecting
attraction as stranger attractiveness increases; for
unattractive subjects, agreement becomes more important
as stranger attractiveness increases. Suggestions v/ere
made for future research in the area of attraction.
40
LIST OF REFERENCES
Byrne, D. The influence of propinquity and opportunities for interaction on classroom relationshipso Human Relations. 1961, L^, 63-69. "
Byrne, Do Response to attitude similarity-dissimilarity as a function of affiliation need. Journal of Personality. 1962, 10, 164-177.
Byrne, D. An introduction to personality: A research approach. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1966.
Byrne, D., Clore, G. L., Jr., & V'/orchel, P. The effect of economic similarity-dissimilarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1966, 4, 220-224.
Byrne, D., & Griffitt, VJ. A developmental investigation of the law of attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology* 1966, 4, 699-702.
Byrne, D., Griffitt, W., Hudgins, V7. , & Reeves, K. Attitude similarity-dissimilarity and attraction: generality beyond the college sophomore. Journal of Social Psychology, in press.
Byrne, D., Griffitt, W., & Stefaniak, D. Attraction and similarity of personality characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, i,"~52-90.
Byrne, D., London, 0., & Reeves, K. The effects of physical attractiveness, sex, and attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality, 1965, l6 (2), 259-271o
N/Byrne, D. , & Nelson, D. Attraction as a linear function of proportion of positive reinforcements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, i, ^9-S53T^ ~
Clore, G. L., Jr. Attraction and interpersonal behavior. Paper read at meeting of Southwestern Psychological Association, Austin, Texas, 1969.
41
42
Edwards, A. Experimental design in psychological research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963.
Helson, H. Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper and Rov/, I964.
Hess, E* H. & Polt, J. H. Pupil size as related to interest value of visual stimuli. Science, 1966, 122, 349-350.
Hoult, T. F. Experimental measurement of clothing as a factor in some social ratings of selected American men. American Sociological Reviev/, 1954, 19, 324-32^7^
Jones, E. E. Authoritarianism as a determinant of first-impression formation. Journal of Personality, 1954, 21, 107-127.
Kirk, R. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole, 1965.
Krauss, R. M. Structural and attitudinal factors in interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 2, 42-55.
Lerner, M. J. Evaluation of performance as a function of performer's rev/ard and attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 355-360.
McV/hirter, R. M., & Jecker, J. D. Attitude similarity and inferred attraction. Psvchonomic Science, 1967, 2, 225-226.
Newcomb, T. M. The acquaintance ^roc,ess. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961.
Pepitone, A. Attraction and hostility. New York: Atherton, 1964*
Richardson, Helen M. Studies of mental resemblence between husbands and wives and between friends. Psychological Bulletin, 1939, 16, 104-120.
43
Richardson, Helen M. Community of values as a factor in friendships of college and aault wfomenc Journal of Social Psychology, 1940, il, 303-312.
Scheffe, H. A method for judging all contrasts in the analysis of variance. Biometrika, 1953, 40, 57-104.
Wong, T. J. The effect of attitude similarity and prejudice on interpersonal evaluation and attraction. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Texas, 1961.
•1
APPENDIX
A. Interpersonal Judgement Scale 45
B* Correlation Coefficients for Each Pair of Judges Rating S, Attractiveness 46
C. Attitude Questionnaire 47
D* Raw Attraction Scores for All Subjects 49
44
45
APPENDIX A: INTERPERSONAL JUDGEMENT SCALE
Judging from this person's responses and
appearance, evaluate, as accurately as possible, the
person on the follov/ing traits or qualities.
Circle the number v/hich represents the degree of
your evaluation:
INTELLIGENCE Very low 1 2 3 4 5
MORALITY Very lov/ 1 2 3 4 5
KNOV/LEDGE OF CURRENT EVENTS Very small 1 2 3 4 5
ADJUSTMENT Very poor 1 2 3 4 5
I FEEL THAT I V/OULD LIKE THIS PERSON Very l i t t l e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much
I FEEL THAT I WOULD ENJOY V/ORKING IN A CLASS EXPERIMENT
WITH THIS PERSON Very l i t t l e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
Very high
Very high
Very great
Very good
46
APPENDIX B: CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR EACH PAIR OF
JUDGES RATING S ATTRACTIVENESS
JUDGE
w o Q
•-3
2
3
4
1
.63
.63
.55
2
.55
.57
3
.74
•-.62
47 APPENDIX C: ATTITUDE QUT^STIONNAIRE
Name
Sex
Favorite Hobby
Do you have a picture of yourself you can spare,
preferably taken while engaging in your hobby? Yes No
Circle the number which indicates your amount
of agreement:
1. It is all right for college undergraduates to smoke.
Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
2. It is all right for undergraduates to drink alcoholic
beverages. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
3. I am for integration in public schools. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
4. I am a Democrat by political preference. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
5. It is all right for undergraduates to get married. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
6. Money is one of the most important goals in life. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
7. The typical four point college grading system
works fine. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
5. The legal voting age should be left at twenty-one
years. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
45
APPENDIX C — CONTINUED
9. Organized religion could stand a whole lot of
improvement. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
10. Athletics is overemphasized at most U.S. colleges.
Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
11. Much of the campus unrest across the nation
is justified. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
12. The U.S. spends too much for foreign aid and too
little for welfare. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
49
APPENDIX D: RAW ATTRACTION SCORES
FOR ALL SUBJECTS
•
f
Low Attractive Stranger
Average Attractive Stranger
High Attractive Stranger
'f
Hi
Hi
Lo
.J,
Hi .
MALE S
Low Agree
5 6 6 6
4 6 6 5
7 7 7 12
10 10 11 11
3 4 7 5
11 12 13 14
High Agree
5 9 10 10
6 5 12 14 5 5 12 12
9 12 12 14
11 13 14 14
10 12 13 13
FEMALE S
Low Agree
3 6 5 12
5 6 7 10
2 5 5 9
6 6 5 14
4 7 9 10
9 9 11 12
High Agree
5 10 10 10
9 12 14 14
5 10 13 14
10 11 11 14
9 10 13 13
11 11 12 12
^ Attractiveness of Subject
, • • , / • : ' . • ;•• :;;iK.s
• - f ' . ' - .
